SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1131

2009(8)SCALE810, (2009)16SCC766
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. S. Sirpurkar and R. M. Lodha, JJ.
Delhi Gate Auto Service Station and Ors. Appellant
Vs.
B.P.C.L. Agra th. Sr. Div. Manager and Ors. Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 5826 and 5827 of 2006
Decided On: 25.05.2009

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Writ Petition - Maintainability - Alternate Remedy also initiated - Dealership controversy relating to two petrol retail outlets - Dealership terminated - Challenged by way of writ petitions – Arbitration clause in dealership agreement - Approached arbitrator as well - Two parallel remedies could not have been intiated at one time - Writ petition dismissed - Proper.

       [Paras 2 and 3]

ORDER

1. The question in these appeals is regarding the correctness of the judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions by the appellants herein. The controversy was regarding dealership of two petrol retail outlets. The dealership was terminated by the respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 'BPCL' for short. That termination was challenged. The matter was remanded by the High Court in the first round with an observation that the BPCL should hear the appellants and consider the objections. Accordingly, show-cause notice was issued. That show-cause notice was also replied to by the appellants by giving various reasons as to why the termination should not have been effected. Later on, the BPCL terminated the dealership. That was challenged by filing writ petitions. However, as per the terms of the agreement of dealership, the appellants also approached the arbitration. Now it is reported that arbitration is over and the award has gone against the appellants which award has also been further challenged.

2. In that view, it will not be possible for us to entertain this appeal. In fact, the writ petitions itself could not have been entertained on the ground that two parallel remedies could not have been pursued by the appellants at one and the same time. The writ petition was rightly dismissed. We do not find any merit in these appeals. They are dismissed without any order as to costs. This order should not be viewed as any expression on the merits of the matters.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top